Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, a roofing business owner, sought a judgment declaring that the defendant, a workers' compensation insurance carrier, was obligated to defend and indemnify him in connection with a claim filed by his employee. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, determining that the defendant did not effectively cancel the workers' compensation insurance policy. The court found that the conflicting notices provided by the defendant, including a noncooperation notice and a cancellation notice, did not constitute an unambiguous and unequivocal notice of cancellation.The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the defendant effectively canceled the policy before the employee's injury by complying with the statutory requirements of § 31-348, which governs the reporting and cancellation of workers' compensation insurance policies. The plaintiff argued that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the cancellation notice effectively canceled the policy.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and concluded that insurers must strictly comply with § 31-348 when canceling a workers' compensation insurance policy. However, compliance with the statute does not supplant an insurer's obligations under contract law, which requires that a notice of cancellation must be definite, certain, and unambiguous. The court held that the Appellate Court incorrectly limited its analysis to the statutory compliance and failed to consider all relevant communications between the parties.The Supreme Court found that the defendant's notice of cancellation was not objectively definite and certain due to the conflicting noncooperation and cancellation notices, which provided indefinite and ambiguous information about the status of the plaintiff's insurance coverage. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court and remanded the case with direction to affirm the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff. View "Napolitano v. Ace American Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Marcus A. Fear was involved in a rear-end collision in 2018, resulting in injuries and medical treatment. He held an underinsured motorist (UIM) policy with GEICO and settled with the tortfeasor's insurer for $25,000. Fear sought additional compensation from GEICO, which offered $2,500 and later $4,004, but Fear did not accept these offers. He then sued GEICO for statutory bad faith under section 10-3-1115, alleging unreasonable delay in payment of his UIM claim.The case proceeded to a bench trial where experts disagreed on GEICO's handling of the claim. The district court found that $3,961 of Fear's non-economic damages were undisputed and ruled that GEICO violated section 10-3-1115. GEICO appealed, and the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that non-economic damages are inherently subjective and that admitting GEICO's claim evaluation as evidence of undisputed benefits violated CRE 408.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and agreed with the lower court that CRE 408 bars the admission of internal settlement evaluations to show undisputed benefits owed. However, it noted that such evaluations might be admissible for other purposes, such as establishing an insurer's good or bad faith. The court also concluded that non-economic damages could be undisputed or not subject to reasonable dispute in some cases, contrary to the appellate court's ruling that they are always reasonably disputable.Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment, finding that Fear did not provide admissible evidence to show that any portion of his non-economic damages was undisputed or not subject to reasonable dispute. View "Fear v. GEICO Cas. Co." on Justia Law

Jeromy McCrackin filed a wrongful death action against Tynan Mullen for the death of McCrackin’s son, who was shot and killed outside a pool hall in 2019. Safeco Insurance Company of America had issued a homeowners insurance policy to Mullen’s grandmother, with whom Mullen allegedly lived at the time. Mullen was indicted for first-degree murder and armed criminal action but pleaded guilty to first-degree involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action. McCrackin offered to settle the wrongful death claim against Mullen in exchange for Safeco’s agreement to pay the total liability coverage limits, which Safeco declined, stating the policy excluded coverage for intentional acts.The Circuit Court of Jackson County overruled Safeco’s motion to intervene in the wrongful death action for the purpose of seeking a stay until a separate federal declaratory judgment action could be resolved. Safeco had filed the federal action to determine whether it had a duty to defend or indemnify Mullen. The circuit court held a bench trial in the wrongful death action, overruled Safeco’s motion to intervene, and entered a judgment against Mullen, awarding McCrackin $16.5 million in damages.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case and held that Safeco had a right to intervene in the wrongful death action pursuant to Rule 52.12(a)(2) for the limited purpose of seeking a stay. The court found that Safeco had an interest in the wrongful death action and that the disposition of the action could impair or impede its ability to protect that interest. The court vacated the circuit court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court did not direct how the circuit court should rule on the motion to stay, leaving that decision to the lower court. View "McCrackin vs. Mullen" on Justia Law

Joe David Hudson was injured while working for Joplin Regional Stockyards, Inc. (JRS) in 2002. In 2005, Hudson, JRS, and JRS' insurer, Star Insurance Company, entered into a settlement agreement where Hudson received an $80,000 lump sum. The settlement left future medical expenses for Hudson's left ankle open. In 2011, Hudson had a below-the-knee amputation, which Star refused to cover. Hudson filed the settlement in circuit court in 2013, and the court rendered judgment in accordance with the settlement. Hudson later filed an equitable garnishment action, leading Star to pay $92,000 for his medical bills. In 2015, Star agreed to reimburse Hudson up to $610,311.75 for future medical expenses. In 2016, Hudson and JRS entered into a subordination agreement, acknowledging all payments due under the judgment had been received.In 2022, Hudson filed a motion to revive the judgment, which JRS opposed, arguing the judgment had been satisfied and the Division of Workers' Compensation had not determined the future medical care provision. JRS also filed a motion for relief from the judgment, claiming it was void due to lack of due process. The Circuit Court of Jasper County sustained Hudson's motion to revive the judgment and overruled JRS' motion for relief.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case and determined that JRS had standing to appeal. The court found that the circuit court erred in reviving the judgment because JRS had satisfied the judgment by paying the $80,000 lump sum. The court reversed the circuit court's order sustaining Hudson's motion to revive the judgment and overruled Hudson's motion to revive the judgment. Hudson's motion for damages for a frivolous appeal was also overruled. View "Hudson v. Joplin Regional Stockyards, Inc." on Justia Law

Curtis Park Group, LLC (Curtis Park) encountered a significant issue during the construction of a new development called S*Park, which included five buildings supported by a single concrete slab. The slab began to sag due to construction defects, and Curtis Park hired a consultant to determine the cause and necessary repairs. The repairs cost $2,857,157.78, which were fronted by the general contractor, Milender White, as per their agreement. Curtis Park had a builder’s risk insurance policy with Allied World Specialty Insurance Company (Allied World) but did not include Milender White or subcontractors as named insureds.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado reviewed the case, where Curtis Park sued Allied World for breach of contract and bad faith after Allied World denied coverage for the repair costs. The district court ruled that Curtis Park could seek coverage for the repair costs even though Milender White had absorbed these costs. The jury found in favor of Curtis Park on the breach-of-contract and statutory bad-faith claims but not on the common-law bad-faith claim. Allied World’s motions for a new trial and judgment as a matter of law were denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in interpreting the insurance policy to allow Curtis Park to recover repair costs it had not paid and had no obligation to pay. The policy explicitly limited recovery to the amount the named insured (Curtis Park) actually spent on repairs. The Tenth Circuit reversed the jury’s verdict and remanded for a new trial, instructing that Curtis Park cannot recover the costs of repair that it did not pay. The court also vacated the remainder of the judgment and remanded for a new trial on all other issues. View "Curtis Park Group v. Allied World Specialty Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Eiden Construction, LLC (Eiden) entered into a subcontract with Hogan & Associates Builders, LLC (Hogan) for earthwork and utilities on a school construction project. Hogan sued Eiden and its bonding company, AMCO Insurance Company (AMCO), for breach of contract, claiming Eiden failed to complete its work, including draining sewage lagoons and constructing a fire pond. Eiden counterclaimed for unpaid work, arguing it was not responsible for draining the lagoons and that Hogan did not comply with the subcontract’s notice and opportunity to cure provisions. AMCO argued it was not liable under the performance bond because Eiden did not breach the subcontract and Hogan did not provide proper notice.The District Court of Uinta County found for Hogan on the claim regarding the sewage lagoons but not on other claims, ruling AMCO was not liable under the bond due to lack of notice. Eiden and Hogan both appealed. Eiden argued the court erred in finding it responsible for draining the lagoons and in awarding Hogan damages billed to an associated company. Hogan contended the court erred in not awarding damages for other work and in its calculation of prejudgment interest.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. It held Eiden breached the subcontract by not draining the lagoons and that Hogan was entitled to recover costs for supplementing Eiden’s work. The court found Eiden’s late completion of the septic system justified Hogan’s directive to expedite lagoon drainage. It also ruled Hogan properly paid the supplemental contractors, despite invoices being sent to an associated company. The court rejected Hogan’s claims for additional damages, concluding Eiden complied with the notice to cure provisions for the fire pond and other work. The court also upheld the lower court’s calculation of prejudgment interest, applying the offset before calculating interest. View "Hogan & Associates Builders, LLC v. Eiden Construction, LLC" on Justia Law

Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, Patterson) provide oil-and-gas equipment and services and purchase insurance to cover potential costs from incidents during drilling operations. For the 2017-2018 policy year, Patterson obtained an umbrella policy from Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe, Ltd. and an excess policy from Ohio Casualty Insurance Company. After a drilling-rig incident led to multiple lawsuits, Patterson settled the claims and incurred significant legal-defense expenses. Ohio Casualty funded portions of the settlements but refused to cover the defense expenses, leading Patterson to sue Ohio Casualty and its broker, Marsh USA, Inc.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Patterson, ruling that the Ohio Casualty policy covered defense expenses because it did not clearly exclude them. The parties then moved for an agreed final judgment, which the trial court signed. Ohio Casualty appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas affirmed the trial court's decision, reasoning that the excess policy, being a "follow-form" policy, did not unambiguously exclude defense expenses and thus covered them.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment. The Supreme Court held that the excess policy's coverage is determined by its own terms, not the underlying policy. The excess policy defined "loss" as sums paid in settlement or satisfaction of a claim as damages, which does not include defense expenses. Therefore, the excess policy did not cover Patterson's legal-defense expenses. The Supreme Court rendered judgment in favor of Ohio Casualty and remanded the dispute between Patterson and Marsh to the trial court for further proceedings. View "THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. PATTERSON-UTI ENERGY, INC." on Justia Law

A five-year-old child tragically died after being struck by a vehicle driven by an Alltrade employee at an apartment complex owned by Whispering Brook Acquisitions LLC. Alltrade had a commercial general liability policy with Motorists Mutual Insurance Company, while Whispering Brook had a similar policy with First Specialty Insurance Corporation. Both policies contained "other insurance" provisions, which led to a dispute over which insurer was primarily responsible for covering the incident.The Jefferson Circuit Court determined that Alltrade and its employees were insured under First Specialty’s policy. The court found that the "other insurance" provisions in both policies were mutually repugnant excess clauses, meaning neither could claim to be secondary to the other. Consequently, the court ruled that both insurers shared primary liability and must contribute equally to defend and indemnify the insureds. Motorists' argument that First Specialty should be primarily liable due to an indemnification provision in the Service Agreement between Alltrade and Whispering Brook was rejected. First Specialty appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that First Specialty’s provision was a nonstandard escape clause, making Motorists primarily liable.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that both "other insurance" provisions were mutually repugnant excess clauses, requiring Motorists and First Specialty to share primary liability equally. The court also overruled the earlier decision in Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Haddix, which the Court of Appeals had relied upon. Additionally, the court found that Motorists had waived its indemnification argument by not filing a cross-appeal and requesting the Court of Appeals to affirm the trial court's summary judgment. The case was remanded to the Jefferson Circuit Court for further proceedings. View "MOTORISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY V. FIRST SPECIALTY INSURANCE CORP." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over whether an insurance policy issued by State Auto Property and Casualty Company to Greenville Cumberland Presbyterian Church covered the collapse of the Church’s roof. The Church's roof, part of a one-story sanctuary building, was around 120 years old. In September 2019, during a roof replacement project, a significant section of the roof dropped overnight. An engineer, Harold Gaston, found that the roof trusses had decayed due to long-term water infiltration, causing the roof to collapse. The Church filed a claim with State Auto, which was denied on the basis that the damage did not constitute a collapse under the policy.The Muhlenberg Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of State Auto, ruling that there was no collapse as defined by Kentucky precedent in Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Curtsinger and Thiele v. Kentucky Growers Ins. Co. The court held that the roof's condition did not meet the "rubble on the ground" standard for collapse.The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the roof had indeed collapsed under the Curtsinger definition, which does not require the building to fall to the ground. The court also found the policy ambiguous and ruled in favor of the Church.The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the policy provided coverage for the actual collapse of any part of the building, including the roof. The court found that the roof had indeed collapsed due to hidden decay and insect damage, and that the Church had taken reasonable steps to mitigate further damage. The court vacated the circuit court’s summary judgment in favor of State Auto and remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of the Church on its breach of contract claim, and for further proceedings on the Church’s extra-contractual claims. View "STATE AUTO PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANY V. GREENVILLE CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH" on Justia Law

Donna Miller Bruenger, the ex-wife of the late Coleman Miller, filed a petition for declaratory judgment against Courtenay Ann Miller, Coleman’s daughter, seeking entitlement to Coleman’s Federal Employee’s Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) benefits. Coleman had failed to designate a beneficiary for his FEGLI benefits before his death, and MetLife distributed the benefits to Courtenay. Bruenger argued that Coleman’s legal obligation under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to assign her the benefits should prevail.The Jefferson Circuit Court ruled against Bruenger, concluding that federal law precluded her claim because Coleman’s employer did not receive the QDRO before his death. Bruenger’s subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals as untimely, and the court also imposed sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal. Bruenger then sought relief under CR 60.02, which the trial court granted, allowing her to refile the appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the refiled appeal as frivolous and awarded attorney’s fees to Courtenay.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and determined that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to consider the merits of the CR 60.02 relief. The Supreme Court held that RAP 11(B) authorizes the award of attorney’s fees as a sanction for frivolous appeals but found that the imposition of sanctions in this case violated due process because Bruenger was not given notice or an opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction but reversed the sanctions imposed by the Court of Appeals. View "BRUENGER V. MILLER" on Justia Law